ASHA BATRA Vs. DHARAM DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision is against the Order dated 24.3.2001 passed by Civil Judge, Delhi in Suit No.15/1999 in terms of which the Revisionists have been impleaded as Defendants in the civil suit which is still pending adjudication. The Respondent herein is the Plaintiff in that suit and the father of the Revisionists was the only Defendant. Paras 9 and 10 of the plaint read as follows :

(2.) Relying on the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kakumanu pedasubhayya and another, Vs. Kakumanu Akkamma and another, AIR 1958 SC 1042(V 45 C 146) and Girijanandini Devi and others Vs. Bijendra Narain Choudhary, AIR 1967 SC 1124 (V 54 C 234), the Trial Court had impleaded the legal heirs of the deceased Defendant. Girijanandini Devi's case (supra) does not apply for the reason that the relief in that suit was for partition which is obviously run with the property and would continue even in respect of legal heirs of the original parties. So far as Kakumanu's case (supra) is concerned that is for rendition of accounts and would therefore continue and the same position is arrived at in Girijanandini's case since the prayer for partition would continue.

(3.) A perusal of these paragraphs, as well as a holistic reading of the plaint, discloses that the Plaintiff had perceived a threat from the Defendant. In the plaint the Plaintiff has alleged that it was the Defendant, namely, Shanti Sarup Batra who had threatened to dispossess the Plaintiff. No doubt in the plaint it has been mentioned that the Defendant and his agents are threatening to dispossess the Plaintiff but the names and particulars of the agents have not been disclosed. It is far too much to expect that the legal representatives should be taken to fall within the term 'agent'.